The worst article/rankings I have ever seen from ESPN.

[RAVENOUS52]

Typical filler, which is why I 'd never pay for content from most so-called premium football sites.

[TarHeels33]

Funny that everything positive about the Ravens is lauded as a work of fine journalism but things that are somewhat negative are slammed. We can't handle people not loving the team? Who cares either way; these rankings don't change how I feel about the Ravens' chances.

Where would you specifically change the rankings there? I'm having a tough time finding anything too out of whack. It's just a subjective view.

[TimTheEnchanter]

It's even more goofy looking if you add up subtotals for offense and defense.

They have the ravens tied 6th (w/ pit) but AHEAD OF DETROIT.
My favorite is that on defense, GB is 8th, ahead of Denver and Cincinnati, who have very little beyond their defense.

Adding these rank values up is really a nonsensical approach to overall rating.

[AntiMoon]

We lose alot of ground based on QB,WR and ST. I think he underestimates Joe and a healthy Boldin and way overrates the Steelers secondary which sucks and is hidden by their pass rush. We showed in both games (with a QB he hates) what happens when you give a QB time against their secondary. Overall people need to understand there are so many talking heads now between TV, radio,internet, newspapers,etc that you will never root for a team that is universally loved and praised. Always will find somebody that thinks your team or player is overrated so stop getting upset over every diss that comes our way.

[alienrace]

Williamson shows what is wrong with sports media these days - people let their personal bias cloud what they write about. I don't remember it being quite this bad a decade ago.

[Beerracuda]

Williamson shows what is wrong with sports media these days - people let their personal bias cloud what they write about. I don't remember it being quite this bad a decade ago.

It wasn't as bad a decade ago, or longer, than it is now. Journalism is hardly professional anymore. What used to be referred to as "yellow journalism" is pretty much the norm these days. It's no longer reserved for just minor independent publications either, as it also includes the major ones. Take a look at many of the publications these days, and count how many grammatical and spelling errors occur in many articles. It's almost as though proofreading no longer matters. Totally unprofessional, and completely neutralizes any impact that the writer may have had - at least in my opinion.

Since they don't seem to have a problem with grammatical and spelling errors, it's a foregone conclusion that personal biases don't matter either. What used to be considered a respected profession has now evolved into a joke. It's almost as if anyone with access to the internet can become a blogger, and thus, in their minds, a journalist.

There are still a handful of decent writers circulating, but they are few and far between. As a result, one can hardly take anything written as objective reporting.

Sad.

[timmyonfleet]

Funny that everything positive about the Ravens is lauded as a work of fine journalism but things that are somewhat negative are slammed. We can't handle people not loving the team? Who cares either way; these rankings don't change how I feel about the Ravens' chances.

Where would you specifically change the rankings there? I'm having a tough time finding anything too out of whack. It's just a subjective view.

Outside of the ravens being behind 3 teams they beat, I have a bigger issue with NO being behind SF, Pitt, and Hou. If you don't think that is out of wack I don't know what league you watch.

[FadeToBlack]

This is why I hardly read NFL opinion articles and come to my own judgements from observation only. I don't even know why people care about these things, you're being manipulated exactly as they intended. Scoreboard: media. LOL!

[FadeToBlack]

It wasn't as bad a decade ago, or longer, than it is now. Journalism is hardly professional anymore. What used to be referred to as "yellow journalism" is pretty much the norm these days. It's no longer reserved for just minor independent publications either, as it also includes the major ones. Take a look at many of the publications these days, and count how many grammatical and spelling errors occur in many articles. It's almost as though proofreading no longer matters. Totally unprofessional, and completely neutralizes any impact that the writer may have had - at least in my opinion.

Since they don't seem to have a problem with grammatical and spelling errors, it's a foregone conclusion that personal biases don't matter either. What used to be considered a respected profession has now evolved into a joke. It's almost as if anyone with access to the internet can become a blogger, and thus, in their minds, a journalist.

There are still a handful of decent writers circulating, but they are few and far between. As a result, one can hardly take anything written as objective reporting.

Sad.

One of the best posts I've read on any message board. Proof reading has never been as bad as it is in the Internet media age. I'll never forget how shocked I was reading an ESPN.com article years ago when it contained ONE grammar error; nowadays I've grown to expect it. Blogs have also reinvented the profession and permanently tainted it.

[GirlsKickButt]

Whatever.

We are 6-0 against playoff teams, did they consider that?

F--- them.

THIS. Scouts Inc's scouting sucks.

[lobachevsky]

Here's the problem with today's media in 10 bullets:

• The media are run by corporations.
• Corporations exist to make money for their owners--period.
• Nearly all media income is from paid advertising.
• Advertisers pay the media for the right to put their messages (mostly sales pitches) in front of their audience.
• The more people in the audience (in fact, the more who belong to the target demographic(s) for the product) to see the ad, the more an advertiser will pay for the ad to run.
• Writers are hired, paid & fired in large part according to how good they are at increasing the size of the audience that advertisers pay to reach.
• Well-thought-out & well-crafted articles tend to have larger audiences--but thoughtful readers who appreciate that craftsmanship are in general not worth as much to advertisers, as they tend not to be kneejerk consumers & are less susceptible to contemporary advertising aimed at the primitive drives & emotions in the reptilian part of the brain.
• The larger ad-susceptible audiences will read articles that support their beliefs (because people are more secure in their sense of self-worth when they know others share their beliefs) and articles that contradict them (the "did-you-see-what-that-shithead-wrote-about-X" factor).
• The larger audience wants to be entertained, and any sort of contention (controversy, harsh words & personal insults, grudges, etc.) is entertaining to the kind of people that ads are designed to manipulate into handing over their cash (call this the WWE effect).
• Most content creators are as lazy & greedy as the rest of humanity & all other things being equal will take the easiest way of doing (& keeping) their jobs & paychecks--which is the manufacture of consent &/or conspiracy (best of all, something that the audience will either agree with or violently disagree with).
  

And that explains Bushmill Hensley, Skip Brainless, the Sun's resident Sad Sack Of Krispy Kreme Krumbs, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum...in fact the sad condition of all media today, not just sports urinalism...

(NB Blogs in themselves have nothing to do with the decay of literary competence in journalism--it's a function of the way people treat electronic communication. A minority of us consider e-mail to be letters that arrive at the speed of light, & take some time & effort to craft them. The vast majority think of e-mail [& Twitter even more] as talking with their fingers on a keyboard--so long as u get ur meaning thru, hu gives a dam?

(And FTR it's been going on for well over a decade at least. I recall the ABC news site, on the day in 1998 when the Senate voted down the articles of impeachment for Clinton, posting a head shot of the President with the caption AQUITTED. )

[psuasskicker]

"Just another list" I know, but this is laughably stupid. I like how the media just seems to paint us as the weakest of the four bye-week teams...first, as if that means anything given that would mean we're the fourth best team in the league anyway. Second, we're 6-0 against all the teams on this list, and we're also the only of the bye week teams that has beaten another bye week team.

Not that the Ravens should care about this other than maybe tacking it on a bulletin board somewhere. But it's one thing to create something that's sorta insulting, like ranking the Ravens fourth or fifth. It's something totally different to just be downright stupid about it.

- C -